195

Sea Turtles As a Flagship Species: Different Perspectives Create Confl icts in the Pacifi c Islands

Irene Kinan and Paul DalzellWestern Pacifi c Regional Fishery Management Council

Irene.Kinan@noaa.gov, Paul.Dalzell@noaa.gov

Abstract People living in the Pacifi c Islands have made great use of marine resources, with most production coming from the coastal zone. Recently however, various nations and territories in the Pacifi c Islands have increased their level of participa-tion in high seas fi shing, primarily pelagic longline fi shing, to meet critical economic development needs. Longline fi shing is one of many threats to sea turtles, however, under the guise of turtle conservation, some environmental non-government organ-isations are using marine turtles as a fl agship species to constrain the development and expansion of longline fi sheries. In the Atlantic Ocean, similar initiatives by cer-tain non-government organisations used swordfi sh and marlin to restrict longline fi shing, but these species are not overfi shed in the Pacifi c. As a result, the economic aspirations of the Pacifi c Islanders to develop longline fi sheries are in confl ict with those non-government organisations who wish to ban all longline fi shing. More over, indigenous interest groups of people inhabiting United States Pacifi c territories have requested that they be allowed a limited harvest of green sea turtles to maintain cultural identity and promote conservation ethics. Consequently, some non-govern-ment organisations ‘objectives’ are expected to confl ict with the indigenous cultural rights of Pacifi c Islanders. This paper will discuss the complex, and sometimes con-tradictory, nature of the fl agship concept, and how the current use of sea turtles as a fl agship species is creating confl icts among stakeholders and actually inhibiting sea turtle conservation efforts in the Pacifi c Islands region.

Introduction

Flagship species are generally large, charismatic, and attractive species, which are also valued traditionally and culturally (Frazier 2003). Unlike keystone or indica-tor species, which may have pivotal roles in the way an ecosystem functions, a fl ag-ship species has strong social dimensions. Flagship species are often endangered or threatened, and the labeling of a species as a fl agship can often engage communities and promote conservation, as has been the case for example for the fl ying fox (Ptero-pus voeltzkowi) in Tanzania (Bowen-Jones and Entwistle 2002). To promote effective conservation, Bowen-Jones and Entwistle (2002) conclude that a species must meet ten criteria for a fl agship species,1 and be used appropriately in context with local and cultural parameters.

This paper provides an analysis, from a fi shery and Pacifi c Island-based point of view, of the tensions created by confl icting interpretations of the fl agship concept and suggests that sea turtles are currently being misused as a fl agship species by cer-tain environmental ngos. We examine three contrasting uses of the fl agship concept:

I. Kinan and P. Dalzell. Sea Turtles As a Flagship Species: Different Perspectives Create Confl icts in the Pacifi c Islands.Mast 2005, 3(2) and 4(1): 195–212.

196

by certain non-government organisations (ngos) working to halt longline fi sheries, by Pacifi c Islanders striving for economic independence and cultural identity, and by fi shery managers -- namely the Western Pacifi c Regional Fishery Management Council -- working to fi nd a balance between stakeholders and maintain an environ-mentally responsible fi shery. We illustrate that certain ngos need to reconsider their advocacy of a complete ban on longlining and take into consideration the economic and cultural realities of people in the region. To be truly successful, they will need to build alliances with the people of the region -- not alienate them -- so that conserva-tion measures for marine turtles are fully supported at the grassroots level.

Pelagic Longline Fishing and Sea Turtle Management

The Western Pacifi c Regional Fishery Management Council (wprfmc or Council) is one of eight fi shery councils in the United States (and one of three in the Pacifi c), established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 to oversee the nation’s fi sheries in the 200 mile us Exclusive Economic Zone (eez). The wprfmc oversees the eez waters around Hawaii, America Samoa, Guam, the Com-monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (cnmi), Johnston Atoll, Wake, Palmyra, Jarvis, Midway Atoll, Howland and Baker Islands (an area as large as the land surface of the continental United States). The wprfmc has managed fi sheries for tuna and tuna-like species since 1986 through its Pelagic Fishery Management Plan (fmp). The Hawaii-based longline fi shery operates under this fmp and comprises approxi-mately a hundred boats. There is a second longline fi shery in America Samoa with approximately sixty-fi ve small boats, and there is growing interest in establishing longline fi sheries in Guam and cnmi.2

Figure 1. Annual estimates of longline fl eet sizes in the Central and Western Pacifi c Ocean from 1960-2002. Asian fl eet includes vessels from: China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia. Pacifi c Island fl eet includes vessels from: American Samoa, Australia (East Coast), New Zealand, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu (source: spc 2003).

197

Figu

re 2

. Est

imat

ed to

tal l

ongl

ine

fi shi

ng e

ffor

t in

the

Paci

fi c O

cean

dur

ing

the

year

200

1 in

the

area

bet

wee

n 45

°S. a

nd 4

5°N

. lat

itud

es a

nd 1

20°E

. and

70

°W. l

ongi

tude

s. S

ize

of

circ

les

indi

cate

rel

ativ

e fi s

hing

eff

ort,

as in

dict

ed in

the

inse

t leg

end

at b

otto

m r

ight

. The

EE

Z m

anag

ed b

y th

e W

PR

FMC

is s

how

n in

ligh

t gra

y (s

ourc

e: S

PC

unp

ublis

hed

data

- fr

om

the

SPC

Pub

ic D

omai

n, R

egio

nal T

una

Fish

erie

s D

atab

ase)

.

198

Pelagic longline fi shing to produce tuna for the high-quality, high-value market is a form of fi shing that can be carried out by small to medium-sized fi sh-ing boats, is affordable in developing economies, and focuses on resources, which are being effectively and sustainably managed (Hampton et al. 2004a, 2004b; spc no date). Although it is not the largest in terms of catch volume, pelagic longlining has become one of the most economically important fi sheries in the Pacifi c (Wil-liams 2004). The combined total pelagic longline fl eet in the Pacifi c has expanded continuously since the 1950’s to meet consumer demand (principally from Japan) for high-quality pelagic fi sh, with the Japanese fl eet driving longline expansion. The Taiwanese fl eet emerged in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the Korean, Chinese, and Viet-namese fl eets have expanded since the 1990’s (the Chinese fl eet is still in its infancy, but has the capacity to expand substantially in the future). Hawaii, Australia, and other Pacifi c Island nations (such as Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, and Western Samoa) contributed to longline expansion in the early 1990s, and American Samoa began longlining in 1996 (Figure 1). Fishing effort for long line fl eets operating throughout the Pacifi c occurs predominantly in equatorial and sub-tropical waters (Figure 2). Of total pelagic longline effort in the Pacifi c, the Hawaii- and American Samoa-based fi sheries managed by the Council are a very small per-centage, totalling less that fi ve per cent of the total number of hooks set each year (nmfs 2001).

The manner in which pelagic longlines are confi gured and deployed is not uniform. Longlines can be arranged in a series of shallow loops held in place by fl oats, with a few hooks between fl oats to target epipelagic species, such as blue shark (Prionace glauca), marlin (Makaira spp.), swordfi sh (Xiphias gladius), mahi-mahi (Coryphaena hippurus), and yellowfi n tuna (Thunnus albacarus) (Figure 3). Longlines can also be confi gured in a series of deep loops with more hooks between

Figure 3. Confi guration of shallow-set pelagic longline gear to target swordfi sh and deep-set pelagic longline gear to target tuna species. Note that hooks on shallow-set longlines lie within the depths most frequented by turtles (the Turtle Layer: 100 m), while hooks on deep-set longlines lie mainly below this critical depth (source: WPRFMC unpublished data).

199

fl oats to target tunas such as bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and albacore (Thunnus ala-lunga), which live and feed primarily in depths below the epipelagic zone (Figure 3). Epipelagic bycatch, including sea turtles and other species, such as marlins, tends to have a depth distribution with increasing frequency near the surface and decreasing frequency at progressively greater depths (sprep 2001; Polovina et al. 2003; Watson et al. 2004). Hence, longlines set below the water layer, in which turtles are concen-trated (Figure 3) tend to hook or entangle turtles far less frequently. Recent obser-vations suggest that the depth profi les vary between different turtle species, with loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) spending most of their time between the surface and forty metres, while olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) spend more time in deeper water, between the surface and 100m (Keinath and Musick 1993; Polovina et al. 2003).

The Council has been strongly proactive in managing and reducing pro-tected species interactions in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fi shery.3 In 1991, two amendments were made to the fmp. The fi rst (wprfmc 1991a) introduced require-ments for permits and logbooks for the Hawaii-based longline fl eet, and included provisions for an observer programme, which was ultimately implemented in 1994 and was directed primarily to collect information on interactions with turtles. This was followed in the same year (wprfmc 1991b) by the establishment of a fi fty nauti-cal miles (nm) closed area around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to minimise interactions with Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi), seabirds (prima-rily albatross, Phoebastria spp.) and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). In 1998, the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service (nmfs) conducted research to identify measures to mitigate seabird interactions (Gilman et al. 2003). These experi-ments, conducted in partnership with the Hawaii Longline Association, have led to the development of mitigation measures that can be almost 100 per cent effective at avoiding seabird bycatch (Gilman et al. 2003). While interactions with seabirds and marine mammals have been mini-mised, the longline fi shery unfortunately continued to interact with leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles. In response to litigation by certain ngos in 1999, the Council and nmfs implemented signifi cant changes to the management of the Hawaii-based longline industry to reduce sea turtle interactions (see wprfmc 2003a for comprehensive information on these regulations). In summary, between 2001 and 2003, the fi shery became an exclusively deep-set, tuna-targeting fi shery with mandatory gear modifi cations, time/area closures (implemented during April and May from the equator to 15oN, and 145oW to 180oW), with twenty per cent fi shery observer coverage for the fl eet. These implemented management measures have successfully reduced sea turtle interactions, nearly eliminating them for three of the four impacted species (Figure 4), but changes in fi shery practices have had severe negative economic and social impacts on the fi sheries sector, as well as on the Hawaiian economy in gen-eral. In 2000, approximately twenty-fi ve boats (about a quarter of the total fl eet) left the fi shery, business revenue fell by approximately thirty-fi ve per cent (or forty-fi ve million us dollars), and 500 jobs were affected (nmfs 2001). These were signifi cant losses to the State of Hawaii, as well as to vessel owners, operators, crew, vessel sup-pliers, and fi sh dealers. The difference between turtle bycatch rates on deep versus shallow sets

200

has been known for several years (Polovina et al. 2000), as has information on the depth preferences and diving profi les for turtles (Eckert et al. 1989; Keinath and Musick 1993; Lutcavage and Lutz 1997). However, studies on ways to reduce interac-tions between turtles and baited hooks are more recent (Bolten and Bjorndal 2002; Polovina et al. 2003; Watson et al. 2004). Studies conducted in the Atlantic between 2002 and 2004 demonstrated the effi cacy of large (18/0) circle hooks and mack-erel bait to minimise interactions between shallow-set longlines and loggerhead and leatherback turtles (Bolten and Bjrondal 2002; Watson et al. 2004). Results from these studies (and other analyses) were used to reopen the Hawaii-based sword-fi sh fi shery in 2004 (wprfmc 2004b) by requiring vessels to use large 18/0 circle hooks and mackerel-type bait. Moreover, as additional safeguards, fi shery effort was capped at fi fty per cent of the historical average, and observer coverage was raised to a hundred per cent for swordfi sh vessels (see wprfmc 2004b for complete infor-mation, analyses, and current regulations). However, lawsuits continue to be fi led by certain ngos, which restrict the ability of agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct experiments to develop additional ‘turtle safe’ longlin-ing measures, and engage foreign longline fl eets in these experiments to transfer gear technologies. In contrast, measures to reduce bycatch of seabirds4 are currently being shared and transferred to Japan through cooperative research experiments (Gilman et al. 2003).

Current Uses of the Flagship Concept in the Pacifi c Islands

Flagship Species Used to Lobby for Fishery ClosuresOver the last fi fty years there has been increasing use of charismatic megafauna as fl agship species to raise funds and promote the ethos of conservation by ngos (Bowen-Jones and Entwistle 2002). Species are chosen to appeal to donor and mem-bership groups, however, in the Pacifi c these tactics have proven unpopular among

Figure 4. Annual mean number of sea turtle interactions during the periods 1994-1999 and 2001-2002 in the Hawaii-based longline fi shery before and after implementation of sea turtle regulations in 2000 (source: WPRFMC unpublished data). Sea turtle regulations include: gear modifi cations, time/area closures, and fi shery redesign from shallow-set (to target swordfi sh) to deep-set (to target tunas).

201

local island communities and fi shery resource managers. Several domestic ngos have mounted campaigns against the longline indus-

try in both the Atlantic and Pacifi c Oceans. The Atlantic initiatives used declining population status of swordfi sh and marlin as fl agship species to curtail longline fi sh-ing; for example, ‘Give Swordfi sh a Break’5 (Hallowell 1998) and ‘No Marlin on the Menu’6 (Billfi sh Foundation 2003) campaigns. Efforts have since migrated to the Pacifi c Ocean with the ‘Mercury-tainted Fish’7 campaign (Sea Turtle Restoration Network 2001; wprfmc 2003b).

However, this strategy does not work in the Pacifi c as these species are not under threat (that is, overfi shed) in the Pacifi c Ocean (Kleiber et al. 2001; isc 2004). In the Pacifi c, sea turtles have become the fl agship species in attempts to constrain longline fi sheries and halt collaborative and international fi shery experiments that might ultimately develop and promote highly effective ‘turtle safe’ technology. In effect, sea turtles are the fl agship species for litigation. The most active of these ngos is the Sea Turtle Restoration Network, which instigated a petition for an ocean-wide Longline Moratorium based on sea turtle bycatch issues (Asilomar Resolution 2002). This same ngo continues to be engaged in litigation to close us Pacifi c longline fi sh-eries, halt longline-sea turtle mitigation experiments, and compel restaurants and supermarkets to publicly display literature warning of [unsubstantiated] dangers of pelagic fi sh due to mercury content (fda 1994; aaas 2003; wprfmc 2003b).

Certain ngos can target highly regulated us-based fi sheries through liti-gation, or seek to impose foreign import restrictions for pelagic fi sh, similar to those for trawl-caught shrimp (for example, the mandatory use of Turtle Excluder Devices8), but are generally ineffective in infl uencing the behavior of foreign fl eets. As noted earlier, the American Samoa and Hawaii-based longline fi sheries together represent about fi ve per cent of the total fl eet effort in the Western/Central Pacifi c region (nmfs 2001, Figure 1). If the us fl eets cease, longline fi shing by foreign fl eets will continue with little change in fi shing effort.

In other words, banning domestic pelagic longlining will not eliminate lon-gline fi shing from the oceans, nor will it promote sea turtle population recovery since longline fi shing is just one of many sources of mortality (see Lutcavage et al. 1997 and Campbell 2003 for summaries of anthropogenic threats and historical uses of sea turtles). In general however, threats to marine turtles include: habitat degrada-tion (at nesting beaches and foraging grounds); poaching and direct harvest of eggs and/or adults; boat strikes; dredging; oil pollution; entanglement; ingestion of plas-tics (or other nonbiodegradable materials); and incidental capture in fi sheries (trawl, longline, coastal and pelagic gillnets). The Bellagio Blueprint for action explicitly states that protecting nesting beaches is key, and the fi rst step to sea turtle population recovery in the Pacifi c9 (WorldFish Center 2004). Both the Bellagio action plan and the fao Expert Consultation on Fisheries (2004) also state that coastal fi shery related hazards (from gillnet, trawl, set-net, and trap), as well as high seas impacts need to be mitigated to recover depleted populations. Therefore, closing domestic longline fi sheries will not automatically remove all major threats to marine turtles. To the contrary, it is likely to make it more diffi cult to develop and implement adequate measures to mitigate or reduce bycatch in the global longline industry.

For example, when the Hawaii swordfi sh fi shery closed there was an infl ux into the us of lower priced, imported swordfi sh from unregulated foreign fi sheries

202

(Sarmiento 2004). The demand for swordfi sh was met by less regulated fi sheries, which have an impact on protected species at an order of magnitude greater than the Hawaii-based fl eet (Bartram and Kaneko 2004). Moreover, foreign fl eets (prima-rily Taiwanese vessels) are known to have moved into the same high seas swordfi sh grounds vacated by the Hawaii fl eet, and thus the waters did not remain un-fi shed and sea turtle interactions are believed to have persisted (Bartram and Kaneko 2004). In addition, information from the us fl eet’s onboard observers ceased, and there was no compensatory increase in information from the active fl eets, so there was little information on what effects these foreign fl eets were having on turtle populations. Indeed, as a generality in the fi shing community, when a ban or closure is imple-mented the usual response is to increase secrecy and decrease collaboration -- just the opposite of what is needed to resolve wide-ranging problems, such as fi sheries bycatch.

Flagship Species for Pacifi c IslandersWhile generalities for cultural aspects over a geographic area as vast as the Pacifi c Islands can lead to misconceptions, it is worthwhile to note that Pacifi c Islanders, including those residing in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and cnmi, utilise and have a strong cultural relationship with their marine resources, including sea turtles (Johannes 1978; McCoy 1982; Campbell 2003; Frazier 2003). Turtles are an intrin-sic part of the culture, subsistence, traditions, and folklore of the region (Balazs 1982; McCoy 1982; Campbell 2003). Traditionally, they are known to have played an important role in religious ceremonies, and perpetuated community relationships and identities through the exchange of turtle meat and turtle products (Johannes 1978, 1981; Balazs 1982; McCoy 1982, 1997). McCoy (1982:279) concluded ‘that tur-tles contribute signifi cantly to the overall cultural stability of the people [in the Mar-shall Islands]’ and that ‘their contribution in protein is not nearly as important as their cultural role’. However, the indigenous people residing in the us and us Pacifi c territories (Hawaii, Guam, America Samoa, and cnmi) lost their cultural rights to harvest turtles when the us Endangered Species Act rendered harvest illegal. They have since requested an allowable cultural harvest of turtles, green sea turtles specifi -cally, to perpetuate and strengthen cultural identity10 (McCoy 1997; Hara 2002; Ilo 2002). In this regard, sustainable use may allow turtles to assume a fl agship role for indigenous Pacifi c islanders to promote cultural integrity (McCoy 1982, 1997; Hara 2002), and may further convey resource conservation ethics to younger generations (Johannes 1978;Morauta, Pernetta, and Heaney 1982; Spring 1982; McCoy 1997; Poepoe, Bartram, and Friedlander in press).

Although this concept may be controversial, islanders believe that strength-ening cultural practices will revive traditional authority, resulting in limited harvest and increased protection of nesting beaches (Spring 1982; Ilo 2002); as has already proven to be the trend in certain Pacifi c Island nations, such as Fiji (spc no date) and Vanuatu (Petro 2002). It is the belief of elders in Papua New Guinea that, ‘[by] fol-lowing old traditions, turtles will still be plentiful’ (Spring 1982:295). Furthermore, socio-cultural studies conducted in cnmi by McCoy (1997) suggest that the continu-ation and regeneration of cultural practice could allow limited use, yet provide more effective conservation measures than laws imposed from afar.

This paper does not intend to provide an exhaustive review of the cultural

203

traditions, uses or perspectives of sea turtles to native Pacifi c Islanders. Nor is it the place to argue the nuances of the terms ‘traditional’ or ‘cultural’. It is our contention however, that sea turtles are ingrained in the cultural heritage of the region. Tur-tles played a signifi cant role in traditional management systems, and conservation ethics, values, and attitudes were perpetuated as a result of the rules, rituals, and legends associated with turtle harvest (McCoy 2004).

Hawaiian protocol is built on a foundation of responsibilities that link people with their environment, and stress that ‘cultural survival is entwined with sustain-able resource use’ (Poepoe, Bartram, and Friedlander in press:8). The most impor-tant responsibilities are: 1) concern about the well being of future generations (meet present food needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs), and 2) self-restraint (take only what one needs, use what one takes care-fully and fully without wasting) (Poepoe, Bartram, and Friedlander in press:12). spc11 (no date:6) suggests that ‘[t]he role of communities in turtle conservation hinges on their customs and traditional fi shing practices.’ This is supported by past studies by Johannes (1978) who documented traditional turtle management strategies through bans on taking nesting turtles and/or eggs, bans on disturbing turtle nesting habitat, and bans on consuming turtles (in addition to other strategies employed to manage fi sh species). These bans were a form of traditional management -- that provided a buffer on the number of turtles harvested -- based on kapu [rules] or ‘taboo’ system where by only certain members of the community (chiefs, priests, or only men) were permitted to eat turtles,12 (McCoy 1982, 2004; Valerio 1985; O’Meara 1990); turtles were harvested for specifi c circumstances (weddings, funerals, religious ceremony, fi estas, the building of a canoe, et cetera) (Balazs 1982; Spring 1982; McCoy 1997, 2004); and some hunts were undertaken ceremoniously (McCoy 1982, 2004; Spring 1982; Ilo 2002). Furthermore, the existence of turtle shell money used as a possible exchanged medium points to its value and possible scarcity in the region (McCoy 1997).

McCoy (2004:39) provides a detailed account of an opening ceremony by the chief for the gathering of eggs and turtles in the Marshall Islands (fi rst described by Tobin 1952). The ceremony includes chants, sacred offerings and rituals. The analy-sis of this ceremony gives insight into its practical means: ‘[r]ather than allow people to swarm all over the island, the iroij (chiefs) and senior people led the way and the food gathering proceeded in an organised, methodical fashion.’ In the cnmi, certain food taboos and customs related to distribution of both live turtles and turtle meat played a role in limiting consumption and as a result may have lessened exploitation (McCoy 2004:39). For example, every turtle caught was brought to the chief, and both the head and best pieces belonged to the chief.

Woodrom-Luna (2003) provides a summary of numerous examples of tapu (traditional laws) employed throughout the Pacifi c Island region to manage turtle resources. For example, the natives of Tobi and Sonsorol (Palau) instituted tapu on eating turtle eggs and even placed fences around nests for their protection. Tapus were placed on taking eggs in Vanuatu and Western Samoa, and a Samoan chief is known to have placed tapu on a nesting beach. In Kiribati, it was tapu to har-vest turtles on the beach, and the Enewetak Islanders (Marshall Islands) made sev-eral uninhabited islands into turtle reserves by forbidding the taking of turtle from those locations. In Tikopia (Solomon Islands), turtles were tapu to all but the people

204

who claim it as their totem. In the Cook Islands, it was tapu for all but old men to eat turtle. In Fiji turtles were a great delicacy, eaten only at important feasts and then only by high-ranking persons. These are just a few of many examples from the region, most of which are entrenched in folklore, and support the notion that there is a cultural precedent for the use of sea turtles as a fl agship species for traditional management and conservation.

The use of the fl agship concept to revive traditional authority of the kapu or taboo system by means of a cultural harvest in hopes to promote conservation ethics may (or may not) be realistic. Yet, it is unclear how effective these traditional resource management schemes were in the past (Frazier 2004), and there is incomplete under-standing of how they would function in today’s market economy, or how they would function among young generations infl uenced by Western culture (Spring 1982); nor is it clear if including turtles in cultural events would lead to patterns of behav-ior for responsible and sustainable interactions. McCoy (1982:275) acknowledges that ‘the erosion of traditional taboos and the preference for modern boats over canoes have led to the disappearance of the protective buffer these customs once provided.’ Yet, banning harvest altogether drives exploitation underground,13 which is ultimately detrimental to turtles and thwarts efforts for sustainable management (McCoy 2004).

The Bellagio Blueprint for Action on Pacifi c Sea Turtles (WorldFish Center 2004) recognises that harvest of turtles and/or eggs by local island communities is the fourth critical point to be addressed to recover turtles (see endnote 9). The authors, and others (McCoy 1997, 2004; Ilo 2002), contend that the costs of a limited harvest would be outweighed by the educational value. In other words, a limited and con-trolled cultural harvest would result in heighten awareness of the stock (biology, life history, threats, and status) and past cultural signifi cance, which would contribute to an adaptive management approach and teach young generations the lessons and tra-ditions revered by their ancestors (McCoy 2004). Undoubtedly, such efforts would also need to be supported by a tremendous amount of education and awareness ini-tiatives (McCoy 1997). McCoy (1997) also suggests that a ‘ceremonial’ harvest (that is, turtle captured and then released) may accomplish these same objectives, such as that which has been accomplished in Taiwan (Balazs et al. 2000). However, depend-ing on one’s perspective, this fl agship concept for cultural revival continues to create unresolved confl icts among numerous stakeholders (including the public, federal agencies, courts, native-rights groups and ngos) in Hawaii and the Pacifi c territories (McCoy 1997; Hara 2002).

Confl icting Perspectives have Contradictory Results

Sea turtles meet the ten criteria of a fl agship species (Bowen-Jones and Entwistle 2002).14 Yet, just as Bowen-Jones and Entwistle (2002) point out, if the fl agship con-cept is used out of context, or does not take into account the cultural importance of the species to the local community, then conservation efforts become counter-pro-ductive. This has been the case in the Pacifi c Islands.

Although longline fi shing is broadening the narrow economic base and giving local communities of the us Pacifi c territories access to economic opportuni-

205

ties and development, these aspirations are in confl ict with those ngos who want to ban all longline fi shing and are using sea turtles as the fl agship to achieve these means. Pacifi c Island fi shers are willing to go to some lengths to utilise turtle miti-gation measures in efforts to conform to best environmental practices (iff2 2003; spc no date), however, the reality is that the global public has become extremely critical of longline fi shers due in large part by the media campaigns of certain ngos. Unfortunately, if longline operators perceive that there is no hope of being believed (of being environmentally responsible) then they are less likely to spend money on mitigation and avoidance measures, allow monitoring, or may concentrate on less lucrative markets (spc no date).

Indigenous interest groups are advisory bodies to, and integrated within, the Council’s fi shery management process. They persistently remind us that traditional systems, which perpetuate and strengthen cultural identity, are as much a necessity to Pacifi c Islanders as is the need to develop economic autonomy. spc (no date:6) recognises that ‘[t]here has been considerable success in recent years in several island communities where cultural strengthening has gone hand-in-hand with conserva-tive resource management.’ Given that turtles are part of the traditional diet and cul-ture of island communities throughout the Central and Western Pacifi c, efforts must be taken to ensure that traditional uses are sustainable (WorldFish Center 2004). Understandably, the request for cultural use of green sea turtles will require exten-sive research to identify what constitutes sustainable harvest. Although this appeal has yet to be formally considered, the request alone sparks considerable confl ict in the Pacifi c Islands between native-rights interest groups and those opposed to any form of turtle harvest (Hara 2002). Cultural rights, sea turtle traditional harvest, and the use of turtles as a fl agship for conservation are obviously separate issues from the region’s developing longline industry. However, balancing economic growth (that is, fi shery development) with the need to perpetuate traditional culture, as well as the means to achieve these goals remains a major issue in the region.

From the perspective of turtle conservation, litigation, and subsequent fi sh-ery closures have had contradictory results. Using sea turtles as a fl agship species for litigation has raised industry awareness, reduced interactions with sea turtles, and increased federal funds to minimise interactions -- which are signifi cant achieve-ments. On the other hand, ngos pursuing litigation have failed to resolve bycatch issues in the much larger foreign longline fl eets of the Pacifi c (estimated to range between 5,000-6,000 vessels, based on fi gures in spc (2003) and from R. Allen, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, personal communication).

The confl icts that have arisen for the us fi shery have given foreign fl eets reason to be apprehensive about sharing bycatch data in fear of reprisals -- namely embargos or fi shery closures. Moreover, the us fl eets carry observers and are one of the few sources of credible information on the impacts of the fi shery. Eliminat-ing this fi shery would eliminate a unique source of valuable information needed to monitor and manage these activities. But most importantly, constraining domestic fi sheries seriously restricts the ability of fi shery managers and us delegations from the State Department to lobby at international meetings and engage foreign coun-tries in discussions to mitigate bycatch or elicit their active collaboration in fi shing gear experiments. Such communication and collaboration is necessary for the suc-cessful transfer of mitigation measures -- possibly one of the greatest strengths that

206

us longline fi sheries have to promote turtle conservation and reduce interactions in the pelagic environment.

Consequently, using turtles as fl agship species to motivate the closure of us-based fi sheries has not, and will not benefi t sea turtles (Dalzell 2000). Instead, it prevents federal funding from being used to conduct essential fi shery mitigation research or applied to conservation programmes, and squanders additional federal funds in the courts to defend the National Marine Fisheries Service against this litigation (Dalzell 2000). Under the banner of sea turtle conservation, ngo litiga-tion-based efforts may benefi t lawyers, but it does little to actually conserve Pacifi c turtles.

The experience of the Pacifi c Islands has shown that the fl agship concept is a strong motivator, yet it has created signifi cant confl icts within the region among key stakeholders. Sea turtles are an excellent fl agship species, if the goal is truly to con-serve the species and their habitats. However, using sea turtles as a fl agship species for litigation to close us-based fi sheries is counterproductive to fi shery management efforts, and consequently inhibits the very conservation it is meant to promote. As long as global consumer demand for fi shery products persists -- not to mention the fi nancial and political interests inherent in the massive investments that have been made in the world’s longline fl eets -- a world-wide longline moratorium is not economically feasible. In light of the current climate of an expanding international longline fl eet, the challenge is to fi nd a way to unite the industry to identify and implement cost-effective solutions. It will take a variety of international stakehold-ers including ngos, resource managers, and Pacifi c Islanders working together to address current recovery objectives, such as protecting nesting beaches and reducing fi shery interactions (WorldFish Center 2004). Yet, it is our hope that some level of balance be achieved with all ngos sensitive to the economic and cultural realities of Pacifi c Islanders, and a fi shing industry which operates without lawsuit-driven restrictions but on scientifi cally-based management plans and culturally-sensitive collaboration.

Acknowledgments

Appreciation and gratitude is extended to Drs. Craig Severance, Jeffrey Polovina, Christofer Boggs, Jack Frazier, Mike McCoy and colleagues at spc, Tim Adams and Peter Williams, for their expert contributions, assistance, and encouragement. The authors thank the external reviewers, mast editors, and Jack Frazier for their edito-rial assistance and constructive comments.

Notes

1The ten criteria listed by Bowen-Jones and Entwistle (2002) for a species to be an effective fl agship spe-cies for conservation are: 1) geographical status; 2) conservation status; 3) ecological role; 4) recognition; 5) existing usage; 6) charisma; 7) cultural signifi cance; 8) positive association; 9) traditional knowledge; and 10) common names. 2Trials with a pelagic longline vessel by the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative have been funded by the wprfmc’s Community Development Project Programme. One vessel operator in cnmi applied for a lon-gline permit in 2002 but has so far not made any landings (wprfmc 2004a).

207

3The term interaction is used to imply that a protected species has come into contact with fi shing gear, either entangled or hooked. It does not necessarily mean mortality. In many cases, entangled and/or hooked species can have gear successfully removed with little to no damage to the animal. 4These include deterrent measures such as side-setting in conjunction with a ‘bird curtain’, underwater setting chutes, and blue-dyed bait.5‘Conservation groups [Natural Resources Defense Council and SeaWeb] hope to make the swordfi sh a symbol for all marine creatures threatened by overfi shing’ (Hallowell 1998: 62).6‘The Billfi sh Foundation has designed the No Marlin on the Menu campaign to eliminate the sale of marlin and sailfi sh by restaurants, markets, and food distributors. TBF has made this campaign a top priority’ (http://www.billfi sh.org/dir/advocacy/positions/).7The Mercury-tainted Fish campaign is possibly the most pervasive, emerging in the courts via lawsuits, in restaurants and generating public safety concerns, for example, ‘[t]he increase in swordfi shing in the Pacifi c has lead to a double crisis: the poisoning of pregnant women and the killing of endangered sea turtles’ (Sea Turtle Restoration Network, press release 2002).8Turtle Excluder Devices were developed by nmfs in 1978 and are installed in shrimp trawl nets to reduce bycatch by allowing turtles to escape through an escape hole. teds have been required by law to be used in us trawl fi sheries since 1989, and were mandated in 1993 (Public Law 101-162, Section 609) -- instigated by a fi shery embargo -- to be used by Latin American countries importing shrimp to the us (Weber et al. 1995). To date, there are still confl icting perspectives regarding the success of the law, the actual use (and/or misuse) of teds, and the certifi cation process (see Arauz 2000).9The Bellagio Blueprint for Action calls for: 1) the protection of all nesting beaches; 2) reducing turtle takes in at-sea and coastal fi sheries; 3) stimulating Pan-Pacifi c policy actions; and 4) encouraging the sustainability of the traditional use of sea turtles. 10Currently this request is strongest among the Carolinian and Chamorro populations in cnmi and among native Hawaiians who wish to use a limited number of turtles in traditional religious ceremonies.11spc [Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community] is a Pacifi c Island regional organisation, set up 56 years ago with general advisory, sustainable development and representational responsibilities in various fi elds [including fi sheries] -- fi elds that benefi t from a regional approach involving the small island states and territories of the Pacifi c.12In Hawaii, turtles were kapu and reserved for chiefs under penalty of death (Valerio 1985). In Samoa, ‘[a]nytime a fi sherman catches a turtle, the sacred fi sh of Polynesia, it must be taken directly to the Asiata’s [chief ’s] house’ (O’Meara 1990).13McCoy (1997) notes that poaching continues to be a serious problem in the cnmi, even though people are all well aware of the illegality of their actions.14The ten criteria for a fl agship species, a Hawaiian perspective as example, are: 1) geographical status: Pacifi c Islands; 2) conservation status: threatened; 3) ecological role: herbivore; 4) recognition: distinc-tive and easily recognized ; 5) existing usage: cultural use sought, ecotourism; 6) charisma: emphatically charismatic; 7) cultural signifi cance: important and pervasive; 8) positive association: positive cultural and local associations; 9) traditional knowledge: high; and 10) common names: honu (green turtle), hone ‘ea (hawksbill turtle).

References

aaas (American Association for the Advancement of Sciences)

2003 Scientists Hook the Identity of Mercury in Fish, Science Study Says. Press release August 28,

2003. Available at: http://www.fi sheriesresearch.org

Arauz, R.

2000 Equitable Fisheries and Conservation of Marine Resource: An Evaluation of Public Law 101-

162, Section 609. Submitted to the Smithsonian Institution, Conservation and Research

Center: Front Royal, Virginia.

208

Asilomar Resolution

2002 Pacifi c Leatherback Survival Conference. Call to Institute a Moratorium on Pelagic Long-

line Fishing. Sea Turtle Restoration Network. Available at: http://www.seaturtles.org/press_

release2.cfm?pressID=162 and available at:

http://www.seaturtles.org/pdf/Resolution5-6.pdf

Balazs, G.H.

1982 Status of Sea Turtles in the Central Pacifi c Ocean. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.), Biology and Con-

servation of Sea Turtles. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press. Pp. 243-252.

Balazs, G.H., I.J. Cheng, and H.C. Wang

2000 Turtle Sacrifi ce to the Temple Gods in the Penghu Islands of Taiwan. In: H.J. Kalb and T. Wib-

bels (Compilers), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology

and Conservation. Miami, Florida: noaa Tech. Memo. nmfs-sefsc-443. Pp. 98-101.

Bartram, P. and J.J. Kaneko

2004 Catch to Bycatch Ratios: Comparing Hawaii’s Pelagic Longline Fisheries with others. Prepared

for the Pacifi c Fishery Research Program and Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric

Research, University of Hawaii, Manoa. Cooperative Agreement No. NA17RJ1230. Pp. 1-47.

Available at: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/pdf/bartram_kaneko_bycatch_rpt.pdf

Billfi sh Foundation, The

2003 No Marlin on the Menu. Available at: http://www.billfi sh.org/dir/advocacy/ positions/ and

available at: http://www.billfi sh.org/dir/advocacy/positions/ nomenu.htm

Bolten, A.B. and K.A. Bjorndal

2002 Experiment to Evaluate Gear Modifi cations on Rates of Sea Turtle Bycatch in the Swordfi sh

Longline Fishery in the Azores. Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research. University of Florida.

Final report to noaa, Award No. NA96FE0393. Pp. 1-14.

Bowen-Jones, E. and A. Entwistle

2002 Identifying Appropriate Flagship Species: The importance of Culture and Local Contexts.

Oryx 36(2):189-195.

Campbell, L.M.

2003 Contemporary Culture, Use, and Conservation of Sea Turtles. In: P.A. Lutz, J.A. Musick, and J.

Wyneken (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol. 2. Boca Raton, Florida: crc Press. Pp. 307-338.

Dalzell, P.

2000 Fishing, Turtles and the Law: Recent Events in the Hawaii-based Longline Fishery. spc Fisheries

Newsletter 93:23-27.

Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, and G.L. Kooyman

1989 Diving and Foraging Behavior of Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian

Journal of Zoology 67(11):2834-2840.

fao (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation)

2004 Expert Consultation on Interactions between Sea Turtles and Fisheries within an Ecosystem

Context. fao Fisheries Report No. 738. Rome, Italy, 9-12 March 2004. Pp. 1-37.

fda (us Food and Drug Administration)

1994 Mercury in Fish: Cause for Concern? fda Consumer Magazine, September 1994, revised May

1995. Pp.1-6. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/ reprints/mercury.html

Frazier, J.

2003 Prehistoric and Ancient Historic Interactions between Humans and Marine Turtles. In: P.A.

Lutz, J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol. 2. Boca Raton, Florida:

crc Press. Pp. 1-38.

209

2004 Marine turtles: Whose property? Whose rights? Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Conference

of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (iascp) “The Commons in an

Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities.” Oaxaca, México, 9-13 August

2004. Available at: http://www.iascp2004.org.mx/downloads/paper_547b.pdf

Gilman E., N. Brothers, D. Kobayashi et al.

2003 Performance Assessment of Underwater Setting Chutes, Side Setting, and Blue-Dyed Bait

to Minimise Seabird Mortality in Hawaii Pelagic Longline Tuna and Swordfi sh Fisheries. Final

Report. National Audubon Society, Hawaii Longline Association, us National Marine Fisheries

Service Pacifi c Islands Science Center, us wprfmc: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Hampton, J., P. Kleiber, A. Langley et al.

2004a Stock Assessment of Yellowfi n Tuna in the Western and Central Pacifi c Ocean. Oceanic Fisheries

Program Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfi sh 17, Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community,

New Caledonia.

2004b Stock Assessment of Bigeye Tuna in the Western and Central Pacifi c Ocean. Oceanic Fisheries

Program, Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfi sh 17, Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community,

New Caledonia.

Hallowell, C.

1998 Save the Swordfi sh: An Alliance of Chefs and Conservationists Wants you to Forgo a Delicacy.

Time 151(3):62.

Hara, L.M.

2002 Should a Native Hawaiian Right to Take Green Sea Turtles be Recognized under the Endan-

gered Species Act? Available at: http://www.hawaii.edu/elp/ publications/studentarchive/

s2002/hara.html

iff2 (Second International Fisher’s Forum)

2003 Executive Summary of the Second International Fisher’s Forum. 19-22 November 2002,

Honolulu, Hawaii. Pp. 1-32. Complete Proceedings to be published by the wprfmc in 2005.

Ilo, L.

2002 The Carolinian Culture with Sea Turtles. In: I. Kinan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Western Pacifi c

Sea Turtle Cooperative Research & Management Workshop. February 5-8, 2002. Honolulu,

Hawaii. Pp. 277-279.

isc (Interim Scientifi c Committee)

2004 Report of the Plenary Session of the Fourth Meeting of the Interim Scientifi c Committee for

Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacifi c, February 2-4, 2004. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Johannes, R.E.

1978 Traditional Marine Conservation Methods in Oceania and their Demise. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 9:349-364.

1981 Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Keinath, J.A. and J.A. Musick

1993 Movements and Diving Behavior of a Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea. Copeia

1993(4):1010-1017.

Kleiber, P., Y. Takeuchi, and H. Nakano

2001 Calculation of Plausible Maximum Sustainable Yield (msy) for blue sharks (Prionace glauca)

in the North Pacifi c. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center,

Administrative Report H-01-02.

210

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz

1997 Human Impacts on Sea Turtle Survival. In: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea

Turtles. Boca Raton, Florida: crc Press. Pp. 387-409.

Lutcavage, M.E. and P.L. Lutz

1997 Diving Physiology. In: P.L. Lutz, and J.A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca

Raton, Florida: crc Press. Pp. 277-296.

McCoy, M.A.

1982 Subsistence Hunting of Turtle in the Western Pacifi c: The Caroline Islands. In: K.A. Bjorndal

(Ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Pp. 275-280.

1997 The Traditional and Ceremonial Use of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) in the Northern

Mariana Islands: With recommendations for its Use in Cultural Events and Education. A

report prepared for the wprfmc & University of Hawaii, Sea Grant College Program.

2004 Defi ning Parameters for Sea Turtle Research in the Marshall Islands. us Dept. of Commerce.

noaa Tech. Memo. Administrative report ar-pir-08-04. Pp. 1-88.

Morauta, L., J. Pernetta, and W. Heaney (Eds.)

1982 Traditional Conservation in Papua New Guinea: Implications for Today: Proceedings of a Con-

ference. Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research (iaser), Monograph 16. Boroko,

Papua New Guinea. 392 pp.

nmfs (National Marine Fisheries Service)

2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacifi c Region.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacifi c Islands Area Offi ce, Honolulu, Hawaii.

2004 Biological Opinion on the Authorization of Pelagic Fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan

for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacifi c Region.

O’Meara, T.

1990 Samoan Planters: Tradition and Economic Development in Polynesia. Fort Worth, Holt Rinehart

and Winston Press.

Petro, G.

2002 Community Empowerment: A Case Study, Wan Smolbag Turtle Conservation Program, Vanuatu.

In: I. Kinan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Western Pacifi c Sea Turtle Cooperative Research & Management

Workshop. February 5-8, 2002. Honolulu, Hawaii. Pp. 109-110.

Poepoe, K.K., P.K. Bartram, and A.M. Friedlander

in press The Use of Traditional Knowledge in the Contemporary Management of Hawaiian Community’s

Marine Resources. In: B. Neis, I.G. Baird, and N. Haggan (Eds.), Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to

Work. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

Polovina, J.J., et al.

2000 Turtles on the Edge: Movement of Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) along Oceanic Fronts,

Spanning Longline Fishing Grounds in the Central North Pacifi c, 1997-1998. Fisheries Oceano-

graphy 9(1):71-82.

Polovina, J.J., et al.

2003 Dive-depth Distribution of Loggerhead (Carretta carretta) and Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea)

Sea Turtles in the Central North Pacifi c: Might Deep Longline Sets Catch Fewer Turtles? Fishery

Bulletin 101(1):189-193.

Sarmiento C.

2004 Assessing Market Transfer Effects Generated by Court Rulings in the Hawaii Longline Fishery.

Western Pacifi c Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, Hawaii. Pp. 1-22.

211

Sea Turtle Restoration Network

2001 Mercury in Seafood Campaign. Available at: http://www.seaturtles.org/ prog_camp2.

cfm?campaignID=20 and at: http://www.gotmercury.org

Spring, C.S.

1982 Subsistence Hunting of Marine Turtles in Papua New Guinea. In: K. Bjorndal (Ed.), Biology

and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press,. Pp. 291-295.

spc (Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community)

2003 Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community Tuna Fishery Yearbook, 2002. Oceanic Fisheries Program,

Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community, New Caledonia.

no date Turtles and Fisheries in the Pacifi c Community Area. Paper presented at the Conservation

and Sustainable Management of Sea Turtles in the Pacifi c Ocean Conference, 17-22 November

2003, Bellagio, Italy. Pp.1-14. Proceedings to be published by the WorldFish Center and the

University of Hawaii in 2005.

sprep (South Pacifi c Regional Environmental Program)

2001 A Review of Turtle By-catch in the Western and Central Pacifi c Ocean Tuna Fisheries. South

Pacifi c Regional Environmental Program. Apia.

Tobin, J.

1952 Land Tenure in the Marshall Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin, No. 11, September 1, 1952. Pacifi c

Science Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.

Valerio, V.

1985 Kingship and Sacrifi ce: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. Chicago, Illinois: University of

Chicago Press. Pp. 117-119.

Watson, J.W., D.G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah

2004 Experiments in the Western Atlantic Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate Sea Turtle Mitigation

Measures in the Pelagic Longline Fishery Report on Experiments Conducted in 2001-2003.

nmfs unpublished report. Available at:

http://www.mslabs.noaa.gov/mslabs/harvest/sea_turtle_mitigation.htm

Weber, M., D. Crouse, R. Irvin et al.

1995 Delay and Denial, a Political History of Sea Turtles and Shrimp Fishing. Center for Marine

Conservation, Washington, D.C.

Williams P. and C. Reid.

2004 Overview of the Western and Central Pacifi c Ocean (wcpo) Tuna Fisheries: 2003. Oceanic Fisheries

Program, Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfi sh Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community,

New Caledonia.

Woodrom-Luna, R.

2003 Traditional Food Prohibitions (tapu) on Marine Turtles among Pacifi c Islanders. spc Tradi-

tional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 15:31-33.

WorldFish Center

2004 What Can Be Done to Restore Pacifi c Turtle Populations? The Bellagio Blueprint for Action on

Pacifi c Sea Turtles. Blueprint (Executive Summary) of the Conservation and Sustainable Manage-

ment of Sea Turtles in the Pacifi c Ocean Conference, 17-22 November 2003, Bellagio, Italy.

Published by the WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Pp.1-16. Complete Proceedings to be

published by the WorldFish Center and University of Hawaii in 2005.

wprfmc (Western Pacifi c Regional Fishery Management Council)

1991a Amendment 2, Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacifi c Region.

Technical Report. wprfmc, Honolulu, Hawaii.

212

1991b Amendment 3, Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacifi c Region.

Technical Report. wprfmc, Honolulu, Hawaii.

2003a Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacifi c region, 2001. Annual report. wprfmc, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Pp. 12-14.

2003b Is the Mercury Scare a Ploy to Shut Down Longlining? Pacifi c Islands Fishery News. Newsletter

of the Western Pacifi c Fishery Management Council. Spring 2003:6-7.

2004a Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacifi c Region, 2002. Annual Report. February 18, 2004. Technical

Report. wprfmc, Honolulu, Hawaii.

2004b Management Measures to Implement New Technologies for the Western Pacifi c Pelagic Longline

Fisheries. A Regulatory Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of

the Western Pacifi c Region. Including a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

March 5, 2004. Technical Report. wprfmc, Honolulu, Hawaii.